2004 (8) TMI 520 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption conditions under Notification No. 34/98-Cus.
2. Liability for Special Additional Duty on imported goods.
3. Disposal of imported goods contrary to exemption conditions.
4. Appeal against rejection of exemption claim.
5. Payment of duty without protest.
6. Claim for interest by the Department.
7. Request for remand to Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination.

Interpretation of Exemption Conditions:
The appeal involved the interpretation of the conditions of an exemption under Notification No. 34/98-Cus. The appellant, M/s. G.S. Metalica, imported brass scrap under this exemption in 1998. The condition stipulated that the imported goods must only be sold to avail the exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty. The appellant argued that they had complied with this condition by selling the imported material, contrary to the observations made by the authorities.

Liability for Special Additional Duty:
The Deputy Commissioner, Customs directed M/s. G.S. Metalica to deposit Special Additional Duty after an observation by the Central Excise Preventive Officer that the imported brass scrap was accounted for in the raw material register. The appellant contended that they had sold the material as evidenced by details provided in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Despite paying the duty without protest, the appellant disputed the liability for interest claimed by the Department.

Disposal of Imported Goods and Appeal Rejection:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's appeal against the demand for Special Additional Duty. The appellant argued that they had sold the imported material and not used it in the manufacturing process, contrary to the Commissioner's findings. They requested a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination of the documents related to the subsequent sale of the goods.

Payment of Duty and Interest Claim:
The appellant had paid the entire duty demanded without protest, leading the Department to assert that the duty liability was admitted. However, a dispute arose regarding the Department's claim for interest on the duty amount. The appellant contended that interest was not payable by them, leading to the need for clarification on this issue.

Remand to Commissioner (Appeals):
After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal upheld the payment of duty by the appellant. The matter of interest liability was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for examination of whether the imported brass scrap was indeed sold in the market subsequent to importation. The appeal was disposed of with this direction for further review by the Commissioner (Appeals).